ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE JOINT MEETING HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 25, 2016
1:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
HOUSE JUDICIARY
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Chair
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Matt Claman
Representative Max Gruenberg
SENATE JUDICIARY
Senator John Coghill, Vice Chair
Senator Mia Costello
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Bill Wielechowski
MEMBERS ABSENT
HOUSE JUDICIARY
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Kurt Olson (alternate)
SENATE JUDICIARY
Senator Lesil McGuire, Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: TITLE IX AND UNIVERSITY POLICY
- HEARD
OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
MICHAEL O'BRIEN, Associate General Counsel
University of Alaska System
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed Title IX, sexual assault, and the
accountability of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
WALT MONEGAN
Interim Commissioner
Department of Corrections
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of the Department of
Corrections Administrative Review Report.
DIANE CASTO, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Corrections
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the presentation clarified an issue
regarding juveniles.
ACTION NARRATIVE 1:32:42 PMCHAIR GABRIELLE LEDOUX called the joint meeting of the House and
Senate Judiciary Standing Committees to order at 1:32 p.m.
Representatives Keller, Lynn, Claman, LeDoux and Senators
Coghill, Costello, and Wielechowski were present at the call to
order. Representatives Millett and Gruenberg and Senator
Micciche arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^OVERVIEW: Title IX and University Policy
PRESENTATION: Overview of Title IX and University Policy1:33:59 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the first order of business would be
an overview of Title IX and University Policy by Mike O'Brien.
CHAIR LEDOUX advised that Mr. O'Brien would speak to the
University of Alaska's Title IX compliance pursuant to reports
of issues handling sexual assault cases on the University of
Alaska campuses.
1:35:10 PM
MICHAEL O'BRIEN, Associate General Counsel, University of Alaska
System, offered a background on Title IX and sexual assault
regulation across the United States at universities and
colleges, discussed specific UAF problems and how they have been
addressed, and how the university is handling and accountable
for compliance for sexual assault on the campuses moving
forward. Sexual assault is a serious problem in Alaska, he
said, and at all universities, including: Yale, West Point,
Brigham Young University, and University of California, Berkley,
because it does not matter how a school is administered, its
ideology, or how the students are organized, sexual assault is a
problem across the country. He pointed out that the University
of Alaska, Fairbanks (UAF) came forward to actively discuss
problems on its campus involving several mishandled cases in its
student discipline process of sexual assault.
1:37:00 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether his use of the term "sexual assault"
means the same as written in statute, or a broader definition as
far as the University of Alaska is concerned.
MR. O'BRIEN said he guessed both because sexual assault at its
most basic term is rape. Title IX is interested in sexual
harassment and, he noted, the federal government regulates
sexual assault or rape as a form of sexual harassment which, he
commented, appears counter-intuitive, but that is how the
university is regulated to think of sexual harassment. Sexual
harassment can have many meanings, such as verbal, quid pro quo
in a workplace environment, and sexual assault. He advised the
University of Alaska (UA) uses the term "sexual misconduct" in a
"soup to nuts" approach of anything inappropriate involving
gender or sexual identify discrimination. He clarified that
when he says "sexual assault" he is talking about "rape."
MR. O'BRIEN reiterated that UAF came forward proactively to
discuss problems involving sexual assault and/or rape on its
campus in the past. He offered background on Title IX and how
universities are where they are currently, and so laser-focused
on sexual misconduct on campuses. President Richard Nixon
signed Title IX into law in 1972, which was considered women's
inclusion into sports that literally leveled the playing field
for women on campuses and funding for women's sports. He
explained that that is what Title IX was for 25 years and then
at the turn of this century that Title IX legally changed to
schools looking not just at access to educational programs like
sports, but actually getting involved with harassment on
campuses.
1:39:54 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX inquired as to whether Congress changed the law or
the federal government changed due to interpreting Title IX in a
different manner than previously.
MR. O'BRIEN responded both. Under Davis v. Monroe County Boardof Education, (97-843) 526 U.S. 629 (1999) 120 F.3d 1390, the
U.S. Supreme Court decided that persistent and insidious
harassment in the educational environment fell under Title IX,
so the law actually changed. He explained that Title IX exists
in federal law, but the vast majority of his discussion is
guidance the University of Alaska receives through the
organization that gives universities the lion's share of their
funding, he explained. It is very persuasive guidance, he
characterized, and the Department of Education followed Davis by
advising schools, universities and colleges that it is now their
business to look into harassment and deal with harassment on
their campuses.
1:41:14 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked for a high level view of the group giving
the University of Alaska its guidance.
MR. O'BRIEN replied that the Board of Education, Office of Civil
Rights has been issuing the guidance that has been a tectonic
shift in how universities handle sexual misconduct on their
campuses.
1:41:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN inquired as to when simple flirtation turns
into harassment.
MR. O'BRIEN responded that when it becomes so extreme and
pervasive that it causes the recipient to leave the educational
environment.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN questioned whether they have to leave the
school because a flirtation exceeded what it would normally be.
MR. O'BRIEN explained that the recipient doesn't have to leave,
but, in essence, a reasonable person would want to leave at that
point. He further explained that the goal of Title IX is to not
deny students educational opportunities due to some sort of
sexual or gender discrimination. Flirtation will not violate
Title IX, but flirtation can get to the point that the object of
that flirtation is so repelled that they would rather drop the
class, or drop out, than continue to see the person, he said.
Clearly, that is a situation where the university is tasked with
taking action, he noted.
1:43:08 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether it is the reasonable person test or
is it as in a tort, wherein "you take victim as you find them."
She further asked how it works if someone is particularly
sensitive.
MR. O'BRIEN responded that, obviously, people are not viewing
their own lives through the lens of a reasonable person because
people view their lives through the lens of their own
experiences. For example, he noted, what is harassing to one
person is simply something that another doesn't agree with.
Universities are the market place of ideas, and uncomfortable
ideas, and ideas that others object to, and ideas that offend
other people, but that doesn't per se make it harassment, he
said. Universities must look at the spectrum to determine
whether the action is so pervasive that someone is being pushed
out of the educational environment, he related.
1:44:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER referred to the guidance received from the
Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and asked whether it changes the
role of the university, and whether the guidance includes
enforcement. He then referred to the handout "Title IX FAQs"
and the comment, "A complaint is by the preponderance of the
evidence" which puts the University of Alaska in a spot where it
can take some sort of enforcement action, and he asked whether
the court is involved or who decides the preponderance of the
evidence.
MR. O'BRIEN replied that new guidance from OCR came out in 2011,
which clearly stated that universities no longer have the
discretion to identify sexual assault as a police matter. He
explained, currently, universities, through their student
conduct process, must look at an event and determine by a
preponderance of the evidence, which is different from the
criminal process, whether that person has violated the student
code of conduct. He pointed out that the power of the
University of Alaska is limited to its boundaries, letting
someone be a student, and the terms of being a student. By a
preponderance of the evidence, for example, sexual assault,
through the Board of Regents' process there is a due process
hearing and a person can be removed from the University of
Alaska's community. The University of Alaska is in a place of
investigating and then adjudicating whether a person can remain
within the university environment for the most extreme, he said.
He then said if someone flirted with a harassing effect the same
sort of investigation would occur but it is unlikely that person
would be suspended or expelled.
1:47:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER commented that he was surprised with the
answer because it appears the role of the university is being
changed, and asked whether this has resulted in lawsuits.
MR. O'BRIEN said he was not sure of lawsuits, but lawyers have
been involved. He explained that previously it was somewhat
rare that lawyers were involved with the student discipline
process, and it is now very common.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether it was common in Alaska.
MR. O'BRIEN opined that it is nationwide, and that is his
experience in Alaska. He explained that the 2011 guidance made
the process formal which likely attracts lawyers.
1:49:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to an incident involving Duke
University Lacrosse players involving allegations of sexual
assault/rape and that case was in criminal court with one
defendant being acquitted. He surmised that in a similar
scenario at UAF a student accused of raping another student
could face both an administration hearing within the university,
and if the university concluded the student had raped another
student, the offender would be expelled from the university,
even if found not guilty in a criminal trial.
MR. O'BRIEN commented that Representative Claman was exactly
correct. He described it as being akin to the Division of Motor
Vehicles (DMV) in that if a person harms someone in a car
accident DMV decides administratively who has a driver's
license. He added that the person may be criminally acquitted
but those are "unhinged" processes because DMV comes to an
immediate conclusion whether the person should have a license
right now.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked what that does in terms of
university resources because, in theory, the university is there
to provide education. Yet, he said, it appears a huge
investigative duty is put upon the university that 10-15 years
ago wasn't there.
MR. O'BRIEN agreed, and he said that even four years ago it
didn't have the investigative duty, and now every university and
college must have a Title IX coordinator, Title IX
investigators, and other support staff.
1:51:38 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to a discussion she had with Mr. O'Brien
earlier regarding due process, and offered her understanding
from Mr. O'Brien that the university's due process hearing it
gives to those accused of sexual assault or sexual behavior
doesn't allow the accused to cross-examine the accuser. She
stressed that the process does not sound like due process, and
asked whether the federal government is requiring universities
to not allow people to cross-examine their accusers.
MR. O'BRIEN explained that previously, one of the problems on
college campuses was that within a case of sexual assault,
universities were completely deferential to the criminal
process, often to the point an alleged victim would have to sit
next to the alleged perpetrator in class because the university
didn't want to take any action against that person or separate
them out of the dorms.
Therefore, he noted, women in particular left colleges with debt
and scholarships unused so there was a problem with over
deference as seen by the federal government.
Contained within the 2011 guidance was a requirement of
universities to have a tectonic shift, to give victims
participation in the administrative process, to lower the burden
of proof to preponderance of the evidence, to make the process
more formal so there wasn't the ability to ignore the problem
until one of the students went away. Along with that guidance
was an effort to remove barriers to participation for alleged
victim's barriers. Previously, universities had allowed victims
to be cross-examined and that mediation must happen first, he
said. From the federal government's perspective and the
guidance, those requirements had a chilling effect on women on
college campuses that prevented them from coming forward and
prosecuting the matter, he explained.
MR. O'BRIEN explained that the Alaska Supreme Court established
standards for the University of Alaska that does not require a
court-like atmosphere, doesn't require cross-examination, or any
of the hallmarks of a criminal or civil trial before the
university takes action to protect the university community.
1:55:25 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to Mr. O'Brien's use of the term
"guidance" coming from a huge funder and asked the definition of
"guidance."
MR. O'BRIEN answered that it is, obviously, very persuasive
guidance and the guidance effects on people's interest in
attending school. He offered that this issue is being
litigated, not in Alaska, but it is unclear exactly how closely
universities have to follow it. He further offered that there
is a movement to not follow it at all, but the federal
government's perspective is very clear and there is an
expectation universities follow this guidance.
1:56:15 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX expressed that she finds it "kind of scary" that a
young man at the beginning of his life could be accused of some
sort of misconduct and without the ability to cross-examine his
accuser could be thrown out of school. She expressed concern
because it could destroy someone.
MR. O'BRIEN responded that there is process in place and there
are several opportunities for a person accused of something like
this to state their case. He added that universities are told
not to have a trial and or a cross-examination environment, he
said.
1:57:09 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked for examples of how this has worked in
Alaska.
MR. O'BRIEN said he would briefly touch on what exactly was
disclosed at UAF, the problem there, and how it has been dealt
with. In 2011, the rules of the game changed and the very
things being discussed in this committee came into effect and
the university started looking at how it was handling sexual
misconduct on their campuses. He referred to the book Missoula:Rape and the Justice System in a College Town by Jon Krakauer
and how the University of Montana did not follow the guidance
given and had significant problems resulting in the Office of
Civil Rights and the Department of Justice coming onto its
campus and taking over the district attorney's office as well.
1:58:30 PM
MR. O'BRIEN said the case regarding the University of Montana
was indicative that many schools were not closely reading the
2011 guidance.
In 2014, a list of the best universities in the United States,
accused of violating their students' civil rights regarding
sexual assault, was published by the Office of Civil Rights,
which included: Harvard; Harvard Law; University of California,
Berkeley; Princeton; University of Michigan; University of
Virginia. He advised that the University of Alaska was added to
the list for review of its handling of sexual misconduct. As a
result of that review, he said, the University of Alaska
produced 12,000 pages of documents, with the lion's share being
a retrospective look of how it had handled Title IX, sexual
misconduct and harassment cases, since 2011. Due to the
University of Alaska having the data from the review, it audited
UAF and found that out of 44 sexual harassment cases, there were
5 were sexual assault cases. He pointed out that, UAF had done
many things right for the alleged victims, such as class
changes, escorts, changing dorm rooms, and trespass orders.
Although, they hadn't carried through with the final bit of due
process to decide whether this person should be in the UAF
community, meaning it had not initiated the "major sanction
process" to suspend or expel the alleged perpetrator.
2:00:50 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked what had happened in the criminal cases.
MR. O'BRIEN said that some had and some had not. Some of the
people are in jail, some charges were pressed but the district
attorney did not move forward because there was a beyond a
reasonable doubt standard versus a preponderance of the evidence
standard, and in some cases no charges were ever pressed. He
reiterated that there were five cases wherein the final stage of
due process hadn't been fully gone through.
CHAIR LEDOUX related that she considers due process as the
rights of the accused, and surmised that Mr. O'Brien does not
mean that the rights of the accused haven't been considered,
rather that of the procedure.
MR. O'BRIEN responded both. He explained that under how "we
view things," the victim has a right to go through that process
as well and in essence prosecute the person he/she is accusing
and he clarified that the student process had not gotten to its
end result in either direction. Subsequent to finding these
five cases, UA performed an audit of its entire system and found
technical paperwork handling issues at UAA and UAS, but not at
the level of UAF where the process stopped without any kind of
fruition. He advised that UAF has re-initiated the process in
the five cases and to its credit, UAF is the only school in the
entire United States that has pro-actively come forward and
discussed deficiencies to begin the healing process. It is
unknown when the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) will published its
report, he said.
2:03:43 PM
SENATOR COGHILL acknowledged that all of the campuses in Alaska
are interested in making them a safe and better place. He
referred to Mr. O'Brien's comments and said the assumption is
peer-to-peer classmates, but there are upper and lower classmen
which is not peer-to-peer from the perspective of institutional
wisdom, and there are employee-student relations. He asked how
UA in being proactive has dealt with those two issues.
MR. O'BRIEN responded that Title IX applies to the entire
educational environment and the boundary of the campus includes
faculty-on-faculty problems, faculty-on-student problems,
student-on-student problems, third-party coming onto campus and
assaulting or discriminating against a student. An important
point of being proactive is training and it has cost a lot of
money but over 90 percent of the faculty and staff are trained
in how to handle problems, he offered.
2:05:51 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked the filtering process in Title IX or how
UA has handled it through its proactive measures in creating
either mean spirited or frivolous accusations so UA does not
destabilize the whole population.
MR. O'BRIEN answered that the answer is training and students
are trained as soon as they walk in the door with the goal to
talk to them about harassment and discrimination in a manner
that does not offend freedom of speech. People should be
careful of their words but not so much so that it is no longer
the marketplace of ideas which is a foreign concept to a lot of
students. The university found that students entering as
freshmen do not necessarily know what consent is and that
incapacitation is not consent, and a considerable amount of time
has been spent teaching that especially right off the bat.
Studies show that the first semester of a student's college
career is called the "red zone" meaning it is a time of
increased vulnerability so UA needs to get to students as soon
as possible.
2:07:56 PM
SENATOR COGHILL referred to "political correctness times" or
normal shifts in this society and pointed out that there is the
assumption that it is male versus female but there is also same
sex pressure on campuses as much as any place in the world. He
asked whether it is an open discussion or throttled back.
MR. O'BRIEN replied that it is an open discussion and that the
only thing that causes rape is a rapist. "By-stander
awareness," and the "green dot program" is empowering to
students and allows students to feel comfortable stepping
forward to encourage students to look out for each other, he
said.
2:09:31 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to lack of consent due to incapacitation
due to alcohol and asked whether that means they are actually
unconscious or possibly making a decision to say yes when drunk
that they may not have said when sober.
MR. O'BRIEN responded that it is a problem that haunts many
cases and stated only a rapist commits rape. The university
will not say that when a person is drunk that anything following
is consent, which would wildly be inappropriate, he related. He
offered that when looking at a controlled campus environment
such as West Point or Brigham Young University they also have
sexual assault problems with no alcohol being allowed. The
focus and training is on the people in UA's community and not
understanding proper boundaries and consent, he offered.
CHAIR LEDOUX explained that her question was due to
"incapacitation" and asked the exact definition for purposes of
Title IX.
MR. O'BRIEN replied that as part of this process and guidance UA
updated its university regulations, defined consent, and
provides students a written policy right up front. He said it
is the ability to say yes or no, and also whether someone is
able to perceive. For example, if a person says yes in a state
of heightened drunkenness that is not true consent.
2:11:44 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked the definition of "heightened drunkenness"
because half the sex in college would be viewed as under
heightened drunkenness.
MR. O'BRIEN related that obviously there is a spectrum and often
UA finds, when determining whether an act is appropriate or not,
itself having to make that exact determination. Under UA
regulations, he explained, it is at the point that a person
loses control of their limbs, can't stop vomiting, talk, or stay
awake.
CHAIR LEDOUX said "absolutely appropriate."
MR. O'BRIEN further explained that often people regret sex when
they are intoxicated but that doesn't ipso facto make it sexual
assault. Finding the gap in between can be a hurdle in
determining what happens in these cases, and often anyone at the
scene has been drinking, he said.
2:12:56 PM
SENATOR COGHILL surmised that from 2011-2014 the education
process of awareness began, and from 2014 to present it has been
taken to a new level in the UA system. He asked whether the
atmosphere of the campuses are tense or relaxed due to these
rules. Inadvertently, he commented, [the fear factor could be
such that students may not want to attend].
MR. O'BRIEN responded that this issue is in their face the
moment they walk onto campus and there is no question that UA is
taking it very seriously and that the response has been
positive. On the issue of sexual assault and whether this is
worth it and a good thing, he advised, because people did not
want to report it because it is horrific, humiliating, and many
situations where the victim may not be taken seriously. Student
safety is where the rubber meets the road, he said. The
University of Alaska has seen the number of reports of people
coming in and talking about this have gone up 300-400 percent in
a year or two, he advised which means students feel UA is taking
this seriously and that someone will do something about it.
SENATOR COGHILL advised that is the conversation he will have
with the student leaders.
2:16:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER noted that when he saw the agenda today,
asked himself "Why? This is the year of the budget" and he
wanted to follow the money. He also asked himself how much it
cost the UA to produce 12,000 pages in response to the OCR, with
no findings. In response to Representative Keller's question of
"Why are you here?" Mr. O'Brien responded that the legislature
requested him.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked whether any federal money goes to
the UA to respond to this.
MR. O'BRIEN advised that it is an unfunded mandate in dealing
with OCR. Although, he noted, there are grants "and things like
that" that are competitive, but OCR does not offer the money to
comply. He added that UA has taken people from other areas and
tasked them with [the project].
2:17:21 PM
MR. O'BRIEN transitioned his presentation to "accountability"
and noted that the proof is in the students coming forward and
UA being able to link those students with counseling, shifting
classes, and keeping them within the educational environment.
Although there has been criticism of Title IX, he described it
as a good thing because students are coming forward and UA is
able to keep them at school.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether the 400 percent increase of
complaints are regarding rape, or other forms of sexual
harassment.
MR. O'BRIEN replied that it is harassment in general, but the
number of sexual assault ... that component of it has gone up
proportionally.
MR. O'BRIEN responded to Chair LeDoux's question of the number
of sexual assault allegations on the various UA campuses were
reported last year, and advised that this semester at UAF there
were 15 sexual harassment complaints and 8 were sexual assault
allegations. He added that at UAS there were 4 allegations and
1 was sexual assault, and at UAA there were 59 allegations and 4
were sexual assault.
2:19:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN used the example of 59 sexual harassment
complaints and 4 allegations of sexual assault at UAA and asked
how many of the sexual assault allegations were reported to the
police.
MR. O'BRIEN explained that reporting to the police is up to the
alleged victim because there is no requirement that the
allegations be reported to the police.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN surmised that with regard to sexual
assault the UA does not have an obligation to report to the
police.
MR. O'BRIEN answered that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN further surmised that it is strictly for
the student to decide whether or not to report this to the
police.
MR. O'BRIEN answered that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted a critique he has heard, via the
national media, is frustration with students going to
universities, being accused of rape, given "kind of" a one year
leave of absence from the university, and a year later they are
back on campus with the perception that the university did
nothing in allowing an alleged criminal back on campus. He
quiered how UA squares those criticisms and the issue of the
victim not reporting it to the police and the accused allowed
back on campus.
MR. O'BRIEN expressed that it is a difficult balancing act and
UA has been put in that position through the guidance. For
example, he noted, at the federal level he urged to either
mandate reporting to the police, or a safe harbor. This
illustrates why UA must perform an investigation itself because
if someone is sexually assaulted and won't go to the police, UA
must perform a serious investigation and if the allegations are
found to be accurate would most likely expel the perpetrator.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered the example of an honor roll
couple happily dating for two years with great careers ahead,
break up and one of them accuses the other of sexual assault and
as a result the alleged perpetrator is not only expelled and
essentially their promising career is over. He also noted the
example of the sexual assault truly happening and the student
being allowed to remain at school.
MR. O'BRIEN stated that UA is in that exact position and being a
millimeter off in either direction can have serious
ramifications, and UA takes that very seriously.
2:24:56 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that the criminal system has rape kits,
forensic experts, and trained investigators, and asked how UA
performs its investigation.
MR. O'BRIEN stated that it "rarely on our own" have access to
that sort of criminal investigatory tools. The University of
Alaska, Anchorage has its own police force with training, and
UAS has the Juneau Police Department on campus.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether there is a 24-hour hot-line for
students to report in case something happens late in the
evening, and if someone is reporting a rape whether the rape kit
can be used. In the event someone does not want to report the
alleged rape to the police, she asked whether those tools are
available and whether that type of investigation is performed.
MR. O'BRIEN answered that he spent many years as a criminal
defense attorney and has many of the same concerns. One of the
main goals of the guidance ...
CHAIR LEDOUX interjected that it sounded almost Orwellian.
MR. O'BRIEN continued that victims have tremendous control over
what happens in their case. Hypothetically, he offered, if a
victim calls and says they were sexually assault at 3:00 a.m. at
a party, clearly UA will perform a risk assessment, although,
there are instances the victim may say "do nothing, I just want
someone to know, I just want counseling." The University of
Alaska is never mandated to call the police but if the victim
wants to prosecute, UA will advise the victim that the best
thing to do is get a rape kit and go to the police. The goal of
UA is to provide the alleged victim with a large menu of options
and not take unmandated control by calling the police.
MR. O'BRIEN advised that UA cannot order the rape kit and does
not have staff people to do it and, therefore, won't have the
rape kit [for its investigation].
2:28:25 PM
SENATOR COGHILL offered appreciation for explaining the
conundrum to the committee because it is important that
legislators know whether the students feel safe and how the
system works. Alaska legislators, he noted, live under an
arcane ethics system and yet if accused of something at least
there is a committee that will take the accusation under
confidential advisement until the facts are shown to be
credible. He asked for an explanation of the procedure when
there is an accusation and whether it is confidential until
found credible.
MR. O'BRIEN explained that at the highest level in terms of
suspension and expulsion under Alaska State Statute only the
president of the university, or only the chancellor by
delegation, can suspend or expel someone. He further explained
the following: an allegation is made and the alleged victim is
contacted by Title IX investigators who are people trained in
speaking with alleged victims about "this sort of" conduct. An
investigation is performed and found by a preponderance of the
evidence that a violation of UA's student code of conduct in
Title IX is supported or not supported. In the event the
allegation is against a faculty member, the report may be
forwarded to HR; if against another student will go to UA's dean
of students. More investigation will be performed and come to a
conclusion that is forwarded to the accused and victim. All
parties have an opportunity to present witnesses to the
investigators as to what individuals to speak with and questions
to ask the other side because there is no hearing, but there is
scrutiny of the facts and the ability to present countervailing
evidence. With regard to sexual misconduct, it is then
forwarded to the vice-chancellor level who offers students an
opportunity to weigh-in, listens to the conclusion of UA
regarding discipline, and that recommendation is forwarded to
the chancellor. Depending upon the number of people involved
that review can take quite a while, and the guidance says it
should take 60 days to arrive at a final conclusion. He
acknowledged that often UA takes longer by erring on the side of
quickly assisting the alleged victim and performing due process
slowly to obtain the most accurate possible outcome. He offered
that once the chancellor determines suspension or expulsion, the
student is banned from all UA property through the life of the
suspension or life if it is expulsion.
2:32:53 PM
MR. O'BRIEN continued his presentation and said in terms of
accountability and being in compliance moving forward, this is
an area the Board of Regents has taken on and are closely
reviewing Title IX. He noted that the Board of Regents tasked
President Johnson with reports twice a year regarding compliance
and more frequent updates on specific problems, and that
President Johnson is receiving updates monthly from chancellors.
He reiterated that students responding is the ultimate
accountability because they are UA's constituents and their
safety is its number one concern.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether there is a statute or
framework in dealing with these issues.
MR. O'BRIEN responded that much of the guidance he referred to
has not gone through rule making and is not a federal
regulation. He explained that the guidance arrives in the form
of a letter and he used the example that one of the most
controversial areas was universities lowering the standard of
proof in some cases to a preponderance of the evidence. He
noted that Congress did not weigh in and the Department of
Education did not have hearings on that as it came in the form
of a letter from the Department of Education to UA.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG interjected a question as to whether it
is state or federal
MR. O'BRIEN responded federal. He continued that other areas
clearly codified as part of Title IX and there are areas in the
Code of Federal Regulations. The vast majority of the guidance
arrives within UA's "Dear Colleague" letters which is an
informal manner of requesting universities to follow certain
Department of Education guidelines. He offered that sexual
assault and these issues have always been prohibited at UA and
it has had a processes in place for a long time, which is
located it its Board of Regents policy.
2:36:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether something formal would be
published on this issue or whether the legislature should
consider an action such as with House Bill 6, many years prior.
MR. O'BRIEN responded that UA is leading on this subject and has
changed its Board of Regents policy as quickly as possible and
is getting into compliance with Title IX's federal mandate
without offending state law and the requirements students in
Alaska have by virtue of being residents.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would like to be informed.
^OVERVIEW: Department of Corrections Administrative Report
OVERVIEW: Department of Corrections Administrative Report2:38:55 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would be
an overview regarding the Department of Corrections
Administration Report.
[1:34:24]
[CHAIR LEDOUX announced that Acting Commissioner Walt Monegan,
Department of Corrections, began his new role just prior to the
House Judiciary Standing Committee's interim hearing on the
Department of Corrections Administrative Report and has been
invited back for an update. Chair LeDoux advised that today is
invited testimony only and that she intends to schedule another
meeting to hear the perspectives and recommendations of the
Correctional Officers Association regarding this report.]
2:39:17 PM
WALT MONEGAN, Interim Commissioner, Department of Corrections,
pointed out that he has been the Interim Commissioner for
approximately two months and the report before the committee is
a bulleted overview of actions taken since his arrival. He
referred to the report released by Governor Bill Walker's office
pointing out many issues the Department of Corrections (DOC)
struggles with and he said they attempted to follow the items in
the order they found them. With regard to the policy and review
updates, he advised, there were many that had not been addressed
and he hired a DOC policy coordinator who works directly for
Commissioner Monegan and, notably, has completed 10 policy and
procedures (P&Ps) under review, including the death of an
inmate. He advised that DOC is working with the State of
Washington and Oregon Departments of Corrections because they
have germane information.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN referred to the organization structure of
facilities and said that he is providing clear direction
regarding responsibilities for DOC. He then referred to a
concern mentioned in the report and said that there were many
lines of communication that were not open because it is a very
closed organization and had been for quite some time, and
currently those are being opened. Any organization within
itself that becomes siloed is doomed to the failures listed in
the report.
2:42:24 PM
SENATOR COGHILL requested an example of the "lines of
communication" gaps he is trying to close.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN replied that there was not a clear
communication within the institution between the medical staff
and correctional staff so he brought the two directors into a
closer relationship and directed that everyone else communicate
within. Quite honestly, he offered, when directors of various
divisions are not talking there is a problem. He advised they
are discussing possible restructures to see whether DOC can
become more efficient and effective in the most cost effective
manner.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN referred to solitary confinement and said
the National Institution of Corrections offers training and he
is sending people for training and the National Institution of
Corrections will pick up the costs. The policy review
coordinator researched quite a bit and the people being sent to
training will be as up-to-speed as possible and he hopes to
learn a lot more on this issue, he advised.
2:44:28 PM
SENATOR COGHILL expressed that solitary confinement can be one
of the more inhuman ways of keeping people incarcerated because
they are cut off from everyone and their time is very limited.
He asked whether Commissioner Monegan is finding space
limitations or segregation issues for the most part.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN offered the example of Goose Creek
Correctional Center where there had been a sexual offenders' mod
called "Kilo Mod" that was separate from the general population
as they are not welcome within the general population. However,
due to the layout of that particular institution in order to
move one of the inmates from Kilo Mod to medical or see an
attorney, the entire yard must be literally cleared of
approximately 300 individuals at any one time and locked back
up. For that reason, Kilo Mod was disbanded and DOC put those
individuals into segregation for their own protection and
safety, he explained. Unfortunately, he pointed out, there are
limitations on what they can have because it is not just their
segregation it is segregation including others. One inmate
cannot be allowed to have more property in the same segregation
area as another and DOC was receiving complaints, he said. The
Department of Corrections (DOC) wants to be certain everyone is
safe, that no one is preyed upon or victimized, and at the same
time look at the efficiencies of running the institution. He
noted it is a matter of space and cost effectiveness.
SENATOR COGHILL advised he wanted to highlight the issue because
he has heard some complaints.
2:46:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the public integrity unit
in the Department of Law (DOL) and "you" one of three units
Governor Bill Walker has focused this unit's attention upon. He
asked Commissioner Monegan what he envisions his relationship
being with that agency, or is it similar to an internal
investigation within the police department. He asked for a list
of prioritization of changes.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN referred to the issue of the Public
Integrity Unit and said he envisions the role of the Department
of Public Safety (DPS) or DOC is providing a liaison with
knowledge of policy and procedures to assist the Public
Integrity Unit in determining why DOC does things as they do,
accessing necessary documents, or bringing interviews to bear.
He offered that DOC is in a supporting or compliance role.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN advised that he is considering establishing
a professional standards officer to interface with the Public
Integrity Unit to assist facilities with the duties he
described.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN referred to prioritization and said
everything mentioned in the report goes to a central theme of
changing the culture within DOC and everything they are doing is
trying to create the environment to effect that change. He
stated that it begins with policy and procedures, training,
screening, supervision, discipline, and interactions with other
agencies and DOC is trying to work with everyone else to effect
that change. He noted that change can be enforced but it will
not be as permanent and sincere as when the change comes from
within. The changes must be throughout the entire department
but, he commented, it is not well delineated in the review of
the governor's office is that the vast majority of people at DOC
are actually on top of their game and doing the right things.
He reminded the committee that the department is asked to
supervise close to 11,000 people when including probation,
parole, and institutions with approximately 1,500 employees. He
said he suspects there are literally thousands of contacts every
day between a staff member and a future returning citizen, and
he suspects that the interaction between the two is proper,
professional, and compassionate. Unfortunately, he stated,
there will be future deaths in the facilities as DOC takes on a
population with issues involved in substance abuse or other
types of neglecting lifestyles that basically shorten people's
lives, and said it is more geography than anything else. The
people that are identifiable and can be interceded upon to
change their outcome are the ones DOC must work on, he said.
2:52:33 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO asked of the division directors and his
position, how many are currently in an acting capacity.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN identified himself, one acting director of
institutions and a medical deputy director.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked "for all acting?"
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN responded "kind of" as the director for
institutions definitely is acting, the mental health and medical
deputy director heads it so he believes just three positions.
SENATOR COSTELLO surmised that those are positions not
considered permanent. She pointed out that Commissioner Monegan
is being considered for the commissioner position and that the
governor has a lot of faith in him; however, the governor is
also perhaps looking. She questioned whether there is plan to
make those positions permanent as it appears with the types of
issues DOC is looking at that it would be in the state's best
interest to have permanent leadership.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN answered absolutely yes. He described his
role as interim commissioner is one to address the issues as
hard as he can, as fast as he can, for as long as he can. The
governor makes the final decision and he can pick anyone he so
chooses, but he wants to move the department forward to address
the issues that have been brought up while still in the acting
capacity, he advised. The other acting individual has 37 years
with the Department of Corrections and Commissioner Monegan is
watching and guiding him into a more conducive behavior
regarding interaction with everyone and noted he is seeing
results. He said when completely lopping off the head of any
organization and losing the upper tier, along with that is the
loss of a lot of experience which makes everyone else nervous.
Therefore, he pointed out whatever has to be done should be
performed precisely and with a lot of thought while trying to
develop the best possible management team with the least amount
of disruption.
2:56:02 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO referred to solitary confinement and juveniles
that spent 11 months in solitary confinement and asked whether
there are national or industry guidelines in terms of the amount
of time an individual should be in solitary confinement.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN replied that the issue is being explored
and reiterated that he is sending people to the National
Institution of Corrections, as well as reviewing research
online, and agreed that solitary confinement should be used in a
more sparing disbursement rather than wholesale. He explained
that some people are in solitary confinement or segregation for
protection against other inmates. With regard to juveniles, he
said, there are many studies that report it is not healthy for
juveniles to be there for long, especially in their
developmental ages, and that it is his hope to learn how they
can more properly be addressed. He stated that DOC should work
closely with the Department of Health & Social Services (DHSS)
to receive its input because DHSS normally runs juvenile issues.
2:58:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, continuing on the topic of solitary
confinement and Commissioner Monegan's description of what had
been done at the Goose Creek Correctional Center's Kilo Mod
stated that putting inmates into solitary confinement when they
had not requested it appeared harsh and more than what was
needed. He said that while he understood the management
problems, inmates in segregation should be the minimum number
necessary and opined that Commissioner Monegan is not doing
that.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN responded that when Kilo Mod was shut down
all of the inmates were offered segregation or general
population and the vast majority chose segregation.
Commissioner Monegan described it as a temporary solution and
that it would make more sense to review all of the facilities
and consider breaking individuals into more compatible areas and
yet be as effective and efficient as possible. He said that DOC
has a large geriatric population and it would behoove that
population and DOC to be closer to medical services should they
need it and there has been a discussion to dedicate one
institution primarily for geriatric inmates. Hiland Mountain
Correctional Center, for example he noted, is all female but it
doesn't have all the services other facilities have in the way
of medical support, et cetra, due to lack of room size within
the confines of the institution. He offered that there has been
a discussion of the geriatric population possibly moving to
Hiland and being fairly close to medical providers, and the
females moving to the Palmer Correctional Center with more room
and "things they do out there," and there would not be all the
internal restrictions on a co-ed institution. He advised there
is an active dialogue in attempting to fit DOC's population in a
manner that support them as well as what DOC is trying to
accomplish overall.
3:02:19 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said his comments are not meant to impugn any
DOC employees as they have a challenging job. He then referred
to the report and noted that it discusses several outdated
policies and procedures. He continued that all Alaskans saw the
videos and he described them as disturbing at best and
heartbreaking at worst.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN agreed.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked whether the solitary confinement policies
are facility specific or whether there are statewide policies
and procedures governing the entire system.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN explained that policies are meant to be
statewide and what DOC does on the topic of procedures is
actually dependent upon the availability of other resources. He
said that having the ability to utilize community assets would
be larger in Fairbanks, Juneau, and Anchorage than in Nome, and
even though DOC mandates these policies there are standard
operating procedures for every institution dependent upon the
availability of community assets that can be tapped into.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked that Commissioner Monegan share with the
committee the existing policies and what sort of acute policy
changes have occurred since the report. He said that
information could be shared with Chair LeDoux later, but he
would like to learn what DOC has done to ensure that it has
dramatically lowered the probability of a recurrence.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN shared that he did not bring the
information with him but will provide the information.
3:05:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked the ratio of the segregated
population and general population, and how many inmates are
voluntarily segregated and how many are mandated.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN responded that he does not have that
information but will provide the information to the committee.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN responded to Representative Millett that a
generalized number would be a guess on his part.
3:06:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN described the choice given to prisoners in
the Kilo Mod is somewhat like a "Hobson's choice" because they
could either go into general population where people convicted
of sexual assault against children tend to be treated very
poorly by their fellow prisoners, or go into segregation. He
said that choosing segregation does not appear to be a voluntary
choice either and he is curious to see how many are protection
issues partly driven by the lack of other options to feel safe.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN answered that he asked that question and
can provide the information, but basically the number desiring
general population was very few and some inmates changed to
segregation. He opined that the final solution is to determine
how to restructure the facilities and accomplish what needs to
be accomplished without extraordinary events, or giving inmates
the choice of solitary or general population. He offered that
Kilo Mod offered support and a place for training, but the
location was a poor choice.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN commented that sex offenders are a
significant portion of DOC's long-term prison population. He
expressed frustration in the amount of money recently spent
designing and building Goose Creek Correctional Center and
hearing the need to go back and redesign the facility.
3:09:39 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that all sex offenders were housed in Kilo
Mod with no one in solitary confinement.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN advised that within the mods, if there is a
lockdown everyone goes back into their cells and they are
locked. Otherwise, he related, during a significant percent of
time the doors are open and prisoners can play cards, checkers
or watch television. He described segregation as a locked down
area where the prisoners are inside behind closed doors, and are
brought out for showers and exercise but only a couple of hours
a day. It is not healthy and they will address the issue, he
expressed.
CHAIR LEDOUX restated her question that when the sex offenders
were at Kilo Mod, were they in solitary confinement or were all
of the sex offenders grouped together.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN explained that the module is like one block
and all of the cells are inside. [Within the Kilo Mod with the
sex offenders] the inside doors were open most of the time and
they could relax and feel safe enjoying comfortable liberties
such as their own MP3 players because they do not play well with
the general population.
3:11:53 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that this model has not worked.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN reiterated that for the staff to move one
inmate [in and out of Kilo Mod] it required the yard being
cleared in order to walk the inmate across the yard to go into a
medical situation, speak with an attorney, or a visitor. He
said it could perhaps be resurrected if they reallocate the
availabilities within the institution and all institutions, but
it will take time.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether juveniles are still being put into
solitary confinement.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN answered yes, they are required not to be
with the general population. He stressed that DOC does not want
juveniles victimized and for their protection they are in
segregation, and that area needs to be explored more readily
than others. He said that the report points out that there is a
strong correlation between individuals, especially in their
formative years, being handicapped when returned to society. He
stated that something needs to be done with regard to youth and
they will work with the Department of Health & Social Services
(DHSS) and its expertise.
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned whether youth were housed at McLaughlin
Youth Center rather than the [adult] prison system.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN opined that years ago when a 14-year old
was convicted of homicide, for example, they would stay at
McLaughlin Youth Center until a certain age and if they still
had time to serve would move into an adult situation. He stated
he is uncertain why that was changed ... and "I could be totally
wrong on that."
CHAIR LEDOUX asked whether there would be any impediment to
convicting someone of an adult crime as [a juvenile], and when
DOC determines where would be placed, rather than placing them
in solitary confinement at an adult prison, placing them into
the McLaughlin Youth Center.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN said that it needs to be explored and he
will continue to look into that because there needs to be some
middle ground and where they are now "I personally feel is not a
good place."
CHAIR LEDOUX stressed "not if they are in solitary confinement."
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN agreed.
CHAIR LEDOUX offered an example of someone being convicted as an
adult at 14 years of age sentenced to four years and asked
whether that juvenile would spend it in solitary confinement.
3:15:55 PM
DIANE CASTO, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Corrections,
said that there are statutes requiring that once a youth is
convicted as an adult they are placed into an adult facility.
When placed within an adult facility, some juveniles are placed
in segregation but most of the juveniles are grouped into an
area of juveniles as opposed to being in general population.
For example, at the Anchorage Correctional Complex there is a
certain area where people under 18 live, having schooling, and
certain activities, and are kept separate from the general
population, she clarified.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said with regard to those juveniles, asked
whether there is a distinction between those held pre-trial and
waived into criminal court for adult purposes are housed in the
McLaughlin Youth Center.
MS. CASTO opined that if they've been convicted as an adult they
go into the adult system, whereas if they have not been fully
convicted and sentenced there could be some movement between the
McLaughlin Youth Center and DOC facilities. She further opined
that the majority of juveniles convicted are within DOC's
facilities.
3:18:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG commented that when a juvenile is
waived to be tried as an adult and convicted, they are put in
the custody of the commissioner of DOC, and if convicted as a
juvenile are put in the custody of the commissioner of DHSS
which is an entirely different treatment program.
MS. COSTO agreed and said if they are in the custody of DHSS
they would be within one of the Division of Juvenile Justice
(DJJ) facilities, and if convicted as an adult would be in care
of the commissioner and within a DOC facility.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN referred to administrative and criminal
investigations and said that since the report good things
actually came out that were almost spontaneous. He advised that
he was notified by the Department of Public Safety (DPS) that
when an inmate's death occurs within a DOC facility, DPS will
assign the Alaska Bureau of Investigations to handle the
criminal aspect of the investigation, which is "fabulous
really." Previously, the Alaska State Troopers would send
whoever was on patrol to the facility and perform an
investigation, and now there are individuals specifically geared
to look for critical information and evidence and perform all of
the right things in determining what happened for a criminal
case. He explained that when there is a death in a facility,
the Alaska Bureau of Investigation (ABI) from the Alaska State
Troopers will respond and DOC will also send a team to handle
the administrative aspects and review what DOC has done in
reference to the policies and procedures and training. He said
that it will be independent of the criminal investigation
because DOC is not involved in the criminal aspects of it, and
DOC's involvement is to ascertain that whatever was done, was
done properly, or if not properly what must be done to address
and fix it.
3:21:17 PM
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN responded to Chair LeDoux that the Alaska
Bureau of Investigations is a unit within the Alaska State
Troopers.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN referred to the report and noted surprise
that there is not a centralized manner in looking at all of the
complaints that came in. He said that when he was with the
Anchorage Police Department, it invested in a commercial product
off the shelf that did not have to be tweaked and personalized,
that captured all of the complaints and the subsequent
investigations into one particular program. He said he believes
it was called "Tarnish Madge." In fact, he noted, it worked so
well that the Alaska State Troopers adopted it as well. He
advised that DOC would like to be the third organization to
choose the same program with the idea for standardization and
uniformity. He said that it can be made available for viewing
from the sergeant level on up and not only did it include
whoever handled a similar-type complaint but the managerial
aspect gave the police department an opportunity to see who the
active investigators were. For example, he said, if he had a
sergeant who had been working for two years and a complaint had
never been documented by that particular sergeant, it was a red
flag to speak with that sergeant. He noted that this program
has been adopted by many correctional institutions across the
country and DOC is looking for something that will give the
ready answer when asked.
3:24:11 PM
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN referred to coordination of other agencies
and reiterated that initially the department was siloed and
shuttered and it didn't want to play nice with anyone including
itself which he described as a breeding ground of distrust and
suspicion. By opening the dialogue with the other agencies
listed helps to undo that and enforces the department in
becoming more open and transparent and cooperatively working
together, he said.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN mentioned leadership challenges and that
his job is to manage a cultural change which includes everything
in the report from things like training, supervision and
discipline and right down to uniform changes putting everyone in
the same colored uniform. In saving money and unifying people,
all will wear dark blue uniforms and he pointed out it is
similar to coaches on sports teams to help start the cultural
change they want to see in their team.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN said he wants to normalize and open up
dialogues with all of the unions and the other agencies. He
said that DOC has a contractual agreement with a labor and
management committee of one particular union and DOC will work
with them because good ideas can come from anywhere.
3:27:01 PM
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN referred to Title 47, protective custody,
and stated that with DOC being part of the Alaska Criminal
Justice Commission it will receive a "big boost" by some of
items on the agenda. Immediately, he stated, DOC can try to
work with the communities and law enforcements where DOC's
facilities are located and develop open communications. He
related that a success story occurred in Juneau at a meeting
between Bartlett Hospital, the Juneau Police Department, and
other community assets to examine the correct usage of Title 47
and that the actual commitments have dropped by half, he opined.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referred to bullet point "Normalization
of unions and other agencies" and asked the specific issues in
this regard.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN answered that within the prior
administration, the relationship between management and union
management deteriorated to the point there was actually a vote
of no confidence for one of the commissioners, and due to the
adversarial relationship a lot of energy and emotion was spent
fighting the wrong fight. He said, with regard to his past
experiences, he wants to implement the same type of
communications and relationship building. For example, when he
became the chief at the Anchorage Police Department he inherited
44 union grievances and when he left the position there were
only four grievances. In normalizing relationships with labor
unions, his goal is to take the issue of animosity off the table
and work with everyone, open communications and build trust, he
said.
3:30:38 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked Commissioner Monegan to offer a top level
definition of Title 47.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN explained that Title 47 is regarding
individuals who the community, usually law enforcement, finds is
a danger to themselves due to intoxication, substance abuse, or
demonstrates mental illness to the point they are suicidal or
very aggressive. Under Title 47, peace officers or doctors are
allowed to remove the individual to a place of safety and
treatment, he explained, and in the vast majority of DOC's cases
it is more the issue of intoxication by alcohol or drugs. In
the event of a pressing medical issue, the individual is taken
to the hospital for evaluation to ascertain their mental and
physical state, but hospitals cannot hold onto them and the next
available safe place is jail. With regard to the intoxicated,
they are held for a maximum of 12 hours but if they become
coherent in less than 12 hours they should be cut free because
they did nothing to violate the law and should not be in jail.
Jail is a place of safety for a while. An individual suffering
from mental health issues needs to be examined by [the hospital]
and receive subsequent treatment if necessary and is just a
holding place until the next availability comes through, he
said.
SENATOR COGHILL explained that the civil liberties discussion of
throughout the making of this law was "when can you detain
somebody for their own safety and when is that civil liberty
under this civil law able to be used." He pointed out that the
issue has been hotly debated within the legislature so that the
state is not just detaining people because there must be good
reason for the detention.
3:34:51 PM
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN continued his presentation and said that
training and evaluations are currently being implemented. He
referred to an unfortunate situation that was narrated again in
the report and, as a former law enforcement officer, he said it
was either a condition called "excited delirium or positional
asphyxiation." He assured that that is heavily hit within the
academy and DOC provided in-service training to bring all staff
up-to-speed.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN advised that the Alaska Police Standards
Council allows DOC to hire a correctional officer or police
officer, whether or not they've attended the academy, and put
them to work with a modicum of training up to 14 months.
Currently, when an individual graduates from the academy the
individual will spend 2 weeks with the medical staff at the
hospital to better understand what it is up against, and as a
team will open communication and develop relationships to
forestall some of the issues the report highlights. He related
that this is a process and not a project.
3:36:30 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX stated that she has heard rumors that the Anchorage
Correctional Complex gets so crowded that people are actually
sleeping in an outdoor enclosure without a roof. She asked
whether there is substance to the rumors.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN asked whether the incident Chair LeDoux
mentioned stemmed from the Fairbanks Four.
CHAIR LEDOUX said she did not mention anything about the
Fairbanks Four.
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN responded that there was a concern that
individuals were being housed outside and he was assured that
the area "they" were temporarily housed was all enclosed but
lacked the heat the rest of the institution had. He said that
once that was (indisc.) everyone was relocated.
CHAIR LEDOUX confirmed that the area had a roof over it with no
heat and asked "even in the winter?" Commissioner Monegan
answered "correct" and Chair LeDoux noted that it must have been
"really cold."
COMMISSIONER MONEGAN opined that the temperature was in the mid-
50s, which is still too cold and once it came to his attention
it was addressed. He pointed out that this is part of the
training culture he is trying to address.
3:38:23 PMADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the Joint
House and Senate Judiciary Standing Committee was adjourned at
3:38 p.m.